Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Both Republican and Democrat voting wage workers blame the government/president for their wages.

Why do you think Trump did so well with coal miners and factory workers?

They thought he was going to do something that would increase their pay.

What, I'm not sure.

The Republican plan is designed to help those with money make even more money.

And they convince enough wage working voters that more money to their bosses will lead to jobs and raises for them.

The Democrat plan is more about responsibility and actually helping more people.

Responsibility about things like, don't dump garbage in the river just because it's cheaper for your business to do that.

And let's give subsidies to extend healthcare to more people.

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

Hee Hee wrote:

That line is pure comedy gold.

Every once in a great while here on LRC one can come across the truly sublime. Congratulations, my friend, you have reached the peak right here.

I assume that you're being sarcastic and for some reason disagree with that statement. So can you be more specific?

I too am making an assumption. I am assuming that your statement implies that corporations are no longer "gouging their workers."

So how about we start with your evidence that today corporations have ceased "gouging their workers".

Hee Hee wrote:

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

I assume that you're being sarcastic and for some reason disagree with that statement. So can you be more specific?

I too am making an assumption. I am assuming that your statement implies that corporations are no longer "gouging their workers."

So how about we start with your evidence that today corporations have ceased "gouging their workers".

Depends on your destination of the word 'gouging". Paying a worker market wages for a specific job I'm not sure would fit that term. Everyone has the ability to turn down a job offer they think is unfair in terms of wages and/or benefits. Complaining after the fact, once you've accepted a job is disingenuous. Don't like your lot in life and the job market? Better yourself so you're marketable for a better position.

L L,

A couple of pages back, I posted about swing voters checking for the chicken on the stove accredited to a president? That's the coal miner vote. That is how Trump got those swing votes.

The Republican plan is the same as the Democrats when it comes to industrial policy. The Dems have a different social agenda. But it's not policy that builds a vibrant middle class.

Each party claims the mantle of personal responsibility while the middle class shrinks.

If Bannon's interview is more than just talk, the midterms might become a crazy third party style election cycle.

Trump is working "hard" to eliminate worker deductions for state income taxes--so the government can tax that money a second time--, and mortgage interest deductions.

In private talks, Trump advisers are pressing to eliminate or reduce several popular tax deductions, including the interest companies pay on debt, state and local income taxes paid by families and individuals, and the hugely popular mortgage interest deduction.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/trumps-push-for-tax-cuts-is-coming-up-against-a-familiar-challenge-divided-gop/2017/09/11/bd7a875c-9763-11e7-82e4-f1076f6d6152_story.html

Government Gouging wrote:

Trump is working "hard" to eliminate worker deductions for state income taxes--so the government can tax that money a second time--, and mortgage interest deductions.

In private talks, Trump advisers are pressing to eliminate or reduce several popular tax deductions, including the interest companies pay on debt, state and local income taxes paid by families and individuals, and the hugely popular mortgage interest deduction.https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/trumps-push-for-tax-cuts-is-coming-up-against-a-familiar-challenge-divided-gop/2017/09/11/bd7a875c-9763-11e7-82e4-f1076f6d6152_story.html

Whats that got to do with corporations gouging their workers? That being said, I'm not a tax lawyer, but personally, I'd advocate for a flat tax across the board. NO deductions. NO IRS. Now that would be a savings I could live with.

L L wrote:

The Republican plan is designed to help those with money make even more money.

And they convince enough wage working voters that more money to their bosses will lead to jobs and raises for them.

I can't recall any instances where a company starting making more money and then turned around and passed the savings onto their customers.

I remember early last year when it was a big story that airlines were saving tons of money by bulk-purchasing fuel when oil was priced very low. The speculation was that airfares would drop as a result of that cost-saving. Somehow that didn't wind up happening.

I suppose some companies do revenue sharing for their employees, though.

Count Chocula wrote:

...

I can't recall any instances where a company starting making more money and then turned around and passed the savings onto their customers.

...

When Rockefeller was dragged before Congress to defend himself against accusations that he was running a monopoly and using that monopoly to gouge customers with high prices he pointed out that oil prices had fallen continuously as Standard Oil grew bigger and bigger.

More recently, Walmart.

Most companies make more money because they pass on savings to their customers. That's how free markets and businesses work. Any company that gains a large market share and then raises their prices will find competition undermining them, taking their market share, and driving their prices back down.

Well said.

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

L L,

A couple of pages back, I posted about swing voters checking for the chicken on the stove accredited to a president? That's the coal miner vote. That is how Trump got those swing votes.

Let's be real.

Trump got those swing votes by lying to the people.

We'll review this presidency and see if Trump implements any policy that helps coal miners actually get more and better paying jobs.

He got swing votes by lying about a wall that Mexico was going to pay and for lying about healthcare for more people and at a cheaper rate.

DiscoGary wrote:

Count Chocula wrote:

...

I can't recall any instances where a company starting making more money and then turned around and passed the savings onto their customers.

...

When Rockefeller was dragged before Congress to defend himself against accusations that he was running a monopoly and using that monopoly to gouge customers with high prices he pointed out that oil prices had fallen continuously as Standard Oil grew bigger and bigger.

More recently, Walmart.

Most companies make more money because they pass on savings to their customers. That's how free markets and businesses work. Any company that gains a large market share and then raises their prices will find competition undermining them, taking their market share, and driving their prices back down.

You are assuming Rockefeller was telling the whole truth?

It's a case by case basis. A company will only lower prices when it benefits their bottom line to do so.

Study the case of the Microsoft monopoly of the 1990's. Their unit cost to produce more copies of Windows and Office was essentially zero. But because they had almost no competition, prices remained sky high. Plus, they used their monopoly position to dominate new markets illegally. The government successfully sued.

It is a myth that companies pass on savings to their customers. All companies try to make as much money as possible. That's what they are supposed to do. If you believe otherwise then you are against capitalism.

Prices won't drop just because taxes are lower. Prices won't drop just because government lowers the cost of doing business. Companies never just "pass on the savings" to their customers. That's a total myth. Any CEO who did that would lose his job (as he should).

You don't seem to understand the role that competition plays in free markets. If the cost of business goes down across the board for all companies, those who do not lower their prices will lose market share to those who do. So in general, yes, lowering taxes and removing onerous regulations will lower costs to end customers.

The real myth is that companies can over charge their customers without consequence.

Holy Toledo, Batman - It looks like there IS massive voter fraud going on according to White House voting commission co-chair Kris Kobach.

https://thinkprogress.org/kobach-fact-check-panel-85e385ea9838/

/////////////////////////////

How does one get to co-chair a White House voting commission when one has no idea how voting works? ROFLOL

And you seem to misunderstand how capitalism actually works in practice.

The scenario you present only plays out when there is tremendous competition and transparent pricing. Otherwise, nobody wants to be the first one to lower prices.

Like I said, it's on a case by case basis. Just lowering taxes or reducing regulation has no net effect on consumer prices unless other conditions dictate a price war. And when was the last time you saw an actual price war?

Government policies on these matters tend to be very blunt instruments that rarely have the desired effect. If your goal is to reduce consumer prices then pro-competition and anti-trust policies are better suited to the task.

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

Government Gouging wrote:

Trump is working "hard" to eliminate worker deductions for state income taxes--so the government can tax that money a second time--, and mortgage interest deductions.

Whats that got to do with corporations gouging their workers? That being said, I'm not a tax lawyer, but personally, I'd advocate for a flat tax across the board. NO deductions. NO IRS. Now that would be a savings I could live with.

Your are ignorant. Those cuts are intended to pay for Trump's corporate tax cut. Trumpkins are so blind.

Any free market is a constant price war.

DiscoGary wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

And you seem to misunderstand how capitalism actually works in practice.

The scenario you present only plays out when there is tremendous competition and transparent pricing. Otherwise, nobody wants to be the first one to lower prices.

Like I said, it's on a case by case basis. Just lowering taxes or reducing regulation has no net effect on consumer prices unless other conditions dictate a price war. And when was the last time you saw an actual price war?

Government policies on these matters tend to be very blunt instruments that rarely have the desired effect. If your goal is to reduce consumer prices then pro-competition and anti-trust policies are better suited to the task.

Any free market is a constant price war.

You make a fair point. I'm just a little skeptical that America really has many truly free markets, or that product price is the main determinant for the majority of consumers.

Government Gouging wrote:

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

Whats that got to do with corporations gouging their workers? That being said, I'm not a tax lawyer, but personally, I'd advocate for a flat tax across the board. NO deductions. NO IRS. Now that would be a savings I could live with.

Your are ignorant. Those cuts are intended to pay for Trump's corporate tax cut. Trumpkins are so blind.

Yes lets raise the tax on the the populace and corporations as much as we can to pay for free healthcare for everyone that decides not to work, give them free disability, food stamps, SNAP, EBT, housing, and on, and on, and on. Oh and in my state, a free CC education, with no strings. You want that kind of life, move to Europe.

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

Government Gouging wrote:

Your are ignorant. Those cuts are intended to pay for Trump's corporate tax cut. Trumpkins are so blind.

Yes lets raise the tax on the the populace and corporations as much as we can to pay for free healthcare for everyone that decides not to work, give them free disability, food stamps, SNAP, EBT, housing, and on, and on, and on. Oh and in my state, a free CC education, with no strings. You want that kind of life, move to Europe.

... and then open the borders to anyone who wants to come, and let's make a special effort to bring in people from places where their culture is completely incompatible with ours!

What could go wrong?